Xenograft Tumor Volume Measurement in Nude Mice: Estimation of 3D Ultrasound Volume Measurements Based on Manual Caliper Measurements

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 90 - 95, 01.06.2020

Mustafa Mahmut Baris Efe Serinan Meryem Calisir Kursat Simsek , Safiye Aktas Osman Yilmaz Sevgi Kilic Ozdemir Mustafa Secil

https://doi.org/10.30621/jbachs.2020.902

Cited By: 3

Öz

Objectives: Volume measurement of subcutaneous xenograft tumors in nude mice models is an important metric to assess tumor growth or response to therapy. Manual calipers are widely used for this purpose. But the measurements with manual calipers may be inaccurate. Contrarily, three-dimensional 3D ultrasonographic measurements give reliable and accurate tumor volume calculation. We aim to; evaluate the accuracy of common four formulas given in the literature to estimate xenograft tumor volumes based on manual caliper measurements and offer a new coefficient for a better estimation of the tumor volumes. Patients and Methods: Detailed manual diameter measurements of xenograft tumors were in 14 nude mice performed using Vernier caliper. Tumor volumes were calculated using the suggested formulas in the literature based on manual measurements. 3D ultrasound volume measurements were performed on same xenograft tumors using high resolution Vevo 2100 imaging system. To propose a new coefficient; means of ratio between manual and ultrasound volume measurement values were used. Also, data set was divided into two subgroups as tumor volume under 800 mm3 and over 800 mm3 . New coefficients for each subgroup were defined. Results: Only with prolate ellipsoid formula there was no statistically significant difference between volume measurements with two methods p=0,24 . Our proposed formula 0,45 L*W*H could estimate tumor volumes as good as prolate ellipsoid formula. Coefficient 0,35 and 0,81 in the same formula were found efficient in the selected subgroups. Conclusion: Using one common coefficient/formula for tumor volume estimation in any tumor size can be inaccurate. Appropriate coefficient should be chosen according to the dataset worked with.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tumor volume, nude mice, ultrasonography, 3-D imaging, laboratory animal science

Kaynakça

• 1. Ayers GD, McKinley ET, Zhao P, et al. Volume of Preclinical Xenograft Tumors Is More Accurately Assessed by Ultrasound Imaging Than Manual Caliper Measurements. J Ultrasound Med 2010;29:891–901. [CrossRef]
• 2. Tomayko MM, Reynolds CP. Determination of Subcutaneous Tumor Size in Athymic (Nude) Mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1989;24:148–154. [CrossRef]
• 3. Euhus DM, Hudd C, LaRegina MC, Johnson FE. Tumor Measurement in the Nude-Mouse. J Surg Oncol 1986;31:229–234. [CrossRef]
• 4. Kersemans V, Cornelissen B, Allen PD, Beech JS, Smart SC. Subcutaneous tumor volume measurement in the awake, manually restrained mouse using MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37:1499– 1504. [CrossRef]
• 5. Jensen MM, Jørgensen JT, Binderup T, Kjaer A. Tumor volume in subcutaneous mouse xenografts measured by microCT is more accurate and reproducible than determined by 18F-FDG-microPET or external caliper. BMC Med Imaging 2008;8:16. [CrossRef]
• 6. Lin CC, Huang WJS, Chen KK. Measurement of Testicular Volume in Smaller Testes: How Accurate Is the Conventional Orchidometer? J Androl 2009;30:685–689. [CrossRef]
• 7. Cheung AM, Brown AS, Hastie LA, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound biomicroscopy for xenograft growth analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005;31:865–870. [CrossRef]
• 8. Graham KC, Wirtzfeld LA, MacKenzie LT, et al. Three-dimensional high-frequency ultrasound imaging for longitudinal evaluation of liver metastases in preclinical models. Cancer Res 2005;65:5231– 5237. [CrossRef]
• 9. Pflanzer R, Hofmann M, Shelke A, et al. Advanced 3D-Sonographic Imaging as a Precise Technique to Evaluate Tumor Volume. Translational Oncology 2014;7:681–686. [CrossRef]
• 10. Paltiel HJ, Diamond DA, Di Canzio J, Zurakowski D, Borer JG, Atala A. Testicular volume: Comparison of orchidometer and US measurements in dogs. Radiology 2002;222:114–119. [CrossRef]
• 11. Matthews GJ, Motta J, Fracchia JA. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: Clinical correlations. J Clin Ultrasound 1996;24:501–505. [CrossRef]
• 12. Hsieh ML, Huang ST, Huang HC, Chen Y, Hsu YC. The reliability of ultrasonographic measurements for testicular volume assessment: comparison of three common formulas with true testicular volume. Asian J Androl 2009;11:261–265. [CrossRef]
• 13. Przybyla BD, Shafirstein G, Vishal SJ, Dennis RA, Griffin RJ. Molecular changes in bone marrow, tumor and serum after conductive ablation of murine 4T1 breast carcinoma. Int J Oncol 2014;44:600–608. [CrossRef]
• 14. van Gelder M, Vanclée A, van Elssen CHMJ, Hupperets P, Wieten L, Bos GM,. Bone marrow produces sufficient alloreactive natural killer (NK) cells in vivo to cure mice from subcutaneously and intravascularly injected 4T1 breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;161:421– 433. [CrossRef]
• 15. Carlsson G, Gullberg B, Hafström L. Estimation of Liver-Tumor Volume Using Different Formulas - an Experimental-Study in Rats. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1983;105:20–23. [CrossRef]